Ex Parte Dam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

11938599 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111938,599
7590
Shell Oil Company
910 Louisiana
Houston, TX 77002
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11112/2007 Willem Dam
03/29/2018
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TS8657 (US) 4298
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLEM DAM and CASPER KRIJNO GROOTHIUS
Appeal2017-003716
Application 11/938,599 1
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Willem Dam and Casper Krijno Groothius ("Appellants") appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the
Final Office Action dated June 10, 2015 ("Final Act"), rejecting claims 1-3,
6-15, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Shell Oil Company as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 5, 16, 17, 22, 25, 27, and 28 are withdrawn from consideration.
Final Act. 1 (Office Act. Summary).
Appeal2017-003716
Application 11/938,599
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of cooling a hydrocarbon stream, the
method at least comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a feed stream;
(b) passing the feed stream through a gas treatment stage
comprising one or more (number: X) parallel gas treatment units
each comprising one or more solvent-fed extraction columns that
remove acid gas from the feed stream and are not shared with
another gas treatment unit whereby each of the one or more
parallel gas treatment units comprises one or more heaters or
regeneration columns not shared with another gas treatment unit,
the feed stream being divided into two or more part-feed streams
if there is more than one gas treatment unit, to provide one or
more first treated streams;
( c) passing the first treated stream or streams of step (b)
through an NGL extraction stage comprising two or more
(number: Y) parallel NGL extraction units each comprising a
knock-out drum and an NGL separator, to provide two or more
second treated streams, the first treated stream or streams being
shared to match the number ofNGL extraction units; and
( d) passing the second treated streams of step ( c) through
a cooling stage comprising one cooling system (number: Z) or
comprising more than one (number: Z) parallel cooling systems
each comprising a closed, independent refrigerant cycle that is
not shared with another cooling system, the second treated
streams being shared to match the number of cooling systems, to
provide a cooled hydrocarbon stream or streams;
wherein Y > Z.
Br. 9 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-003716
Application 11/938,599
REJECTION3
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hawrysz (WO 2006/009646 A2, published
Jan. 26, 2006) and Hoffart (US 6,295,833 Bl, issued Oct. 2, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue for the patentability of claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 23,
24, and 26 as a group. Br. 5-8. We select claim 1 as representative, and the
remaining claims of the group stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Step ( c) of claim 1 recites:
passing the first treated stream or streams of step (b) through an
NGL extraction stage comprising two or more (number: l)
parallel NGL extraction units each comprising a knock-out
drum and an NGL separator, to provide two or more second
treated streams, the first treated stream or streams being shared
to match the number ofNGL extraction units[.]
Br. 9 (Claims App.). Appellant asserts that the claim term "NGL
extraction unit" is defined by the following description in the
Specification:
The NGL extraction stage comprises one or more parallel
NGL extraction units. By "NGL extraction unit" is meant a unit
comprising one or more knock-out drums from which the
hydrocarbon stream is passed, via an expansion step, to one or
more NGL separators which produce an NGL stream or streams,
which each comprise, for instance, less than 5 mole % methane.
The knock-out drums and NGL separators of the NGL extraction
unit represent equipment which is dedicated to a single NGL
extraction unit such that they are not shared with any other NGL
3 The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 6-7.
3
Appeal2017-003716
Application 11/938,599
extraction units. However, subsequent separation of the NGL
stream into individual hydrocarbon streams, often referred to as
fractionation, can be carried out in a facility shared between NGL
extraction units.
Br. 6-7 (citing Spec. p. 7, 1. 26-p. 8, 1. 7 (emphasis added)). It is
Appellants' position that this description provides a definition of an
"NGL extraction unit," according to which "the knock-out drums are
dedicated to a single NGL extraction unit such that they are not shared
with any other NGL extraction units." Id. at 7. We agree.
Regarding step ( c ), the Examiner finds that Hawryz discloses passing
one or more first treated streams (streams leaving solvent contactors 13, 13a)
from a gas treatment stage (AGR contactor 33) through an NGL (natural gas
liquid) extraction stage (deethanizer 36) comprising two (i.e., Y=2) parallel
NGL extraction units (NGL unit modules; citing Hawryz i-f 98) each
comprising a knock-out drum (knock-out drum 65b) and an NGL separator
(column 71 a or distillation column 73). Final Act. 4 (citing Hawryz, Fig.
2A); see also Hawryz, Fig. 4.
The Examiner finds that Hawryz does not explicitly teach, in regard to
the example of Figure 4, that the NGL extraction stage comprises parallel
extraction units which do not share any components. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner submits, however, that Hawryz states explicitly that the example
of integrated NGL extraction units as shown in Figure 4 is non-limiting, and
the NGL extraction units may have any level of integration (citing Hawryz
i-f 98) including integration with no sharing ("see parallel integrated -
para. 71, 34 showing that the parallel integrated arrangement is the basic
parallel arrangement of units, which have no sharing of components"). Id.
The Examiner therefore reasons that it would have been obvious to modify
4
Appeal2017-003716
Application 11/938,599
Hawryz to employ two parallel extraction units, that are modular and
separate (i.e., do not share components), to provide "the benefits of
modularity and provide higher product production with lower design costs
due by not requiring integration and for the purpose of providing simpler
installation." Id.
Appellants contend that Hawryz fails to disclose or suggest step ( c ).
Br. 6. Particularly, Appellants contend that parallel NGL recovery columns
71 a, 71 b share a single, common knock-out drum 65b, described as "one
common knock out drum 65b." Id. (citing Hawryz i-f 98). Appellants
contend that as only one common knock-out drum 65b supplies two parallel
NGL recovery columns 71a, 71 b, then based on Appellants' definition of an
"NGL extraction unit," Figure 4 only contains one single NGL extraction
unit. Id.
Paragraph 98 of Hawryz states, in pertinent part and with emphases
added:
The level of integration in a process unit module type may vary
and the examples depicted in Figure 4 are not meant to limit the
invention. Additionally, the deethanizer unit depicted in Figure
4 is exemplary of one particular deethanizer unit flow scheme
and equipment arrangement and is not intended to limit the
invention. Other manners of process unit module integration,
deethanizer unit flow scheme and equipment arrangement are
intended to be included within the scope of the invention.
Appellants disagree with the Examiner's finding that this paragraph
explicitly states that "the extraction units may have any level of integration."
Br. 7. Rather, Appellants contend, this paragraph states that "[t]he level of
integration in a process unit module type may vary and the examples
depicted in Figure 4 are not meant to limit the invention." Id. (emphasis
omitted).
5
Appeal2017-003716
Application 11/938,599
We agree with Appellants insofar as paragraph 98 of Hawryz does not
describe explicitly that "the extraction units may have any level of
integration." Br. 7. Appellants contend that Hawryz seeks integration
within process units by sharing of components, such as a knock out drum
(id. at 7-8), whereas, in contrast, the claim limitation Y > Z aims to increase
the plant capacity without having to supply a complete and separate
liquefaction train (id. at 8). Appellants contend that paragraph 98 does not
provide a direct teaching of providing "two or more (number: Y) parallel
NGL extraction units each comprising a knock-out drum and an NGL
separator," as claimed. Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. The Examiner appears to
acknowledge that Figure 4 of Hawryz does not disclose an NGL extraction
stage that comprises parallel extraction units which do not share
components. Ans. 7-8. We agree with the Examiner that Hawryz discloses
that the example depicted in Figure 4 is non-limiting. Final Act. 5; Ans. 8.
Further, the Examiner does not rely only on paragraph 98 and Figure 4 of
Hawryz in support of the rejection. Rather, the Examiner's position is that
Hawryz, as a whole, teaches or suggests an NGL extraction stage that
comprises parallel extraction units, as claimed. Ans. 9. In support, the
Examiner relies on additional description in Hawryz pertaining to parallel
arrangements of units. Ans. 8. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 34 and
71 (Final Act. 5) and paragraphs 62, 72 (Ans. 9) of Hawryz as disclosing
parallel integration without component sharing. Id. As noted by the
Examiner, Appellants do not specifically address the Examiner's findings
with respect to these additional teachings in Hawryz. Ans. 9-10.
Consequently, Appellants do not apprise us of any error in these findings.
6
Appeal2017-003716
Application 11/938,599
It is further the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious
to modify Hawryz to include the claimed NGL extraction units. Appellants
assert that "the above identified [deficiency of Hawryz] is not remedied by
Hoffart" and "[t]he subject matter of claim 1 is non-obvious." Br. 8. We
agree with the Examiner that these assertions, which are conclusory, do not
persuasively address the Examiner's proposed modification of Hawryz.
Ans. 8-9. Consequently, Appellants do not apprise us of any error in the
Examiner's reasoning in support of the proposed modification.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Hawryz and Hoffart. Claims 2, 3, 6-15, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26 fall with
claim 1.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-21, 23,
24, and 26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7